GernBlansten

This thread got me to review our recent recharter. There are 4 or 5 scouts on it that are fully paid (not by the troop) for 2006. None of them have been "active" in at least 2 years. But their parents or they themselves paid the fee. Should we remove them from the list or leave them to fatten our re-charter numbers for council? Is it unethical to consider these scouts as active from a registration standpoint? If a scout is fully paid, why would you want to remove him from the roster?

Lisabob, I'm not advocating proselytizing in BSA, not that that does not occur in some units. Open enrollement would allow BSA to demonstrate the virtues of religion along with the rest of its program. By excluding those potential scouts, they lose that opportunity.

Funscout, you are a rational and reasonable Christian. One who I would enjoy camping with. I do not understand why some Christian churches shun those who don't accept the entire package. To me it is an opportunity to convert the misguided. Unfortunately, many (not all) view their church like an exclusive club. Some Christian churches even require an interview with elders before being accepted into the congregation. What would be the purpose of that except to restrict membership. Many years ago, I investigated a private Christian school to send my children too. It was highly regarded and just down the street from me. On the application form, it had a requirement for me and my wife to define my commitment to my belief in Jesus as my personal saviour. Since I could not, I was unable to complete the application. My children were denied access. What a wonderful opportunity they missed to correct my mistakes (in their mind) with my children and show them their path to salvation. BSA is really no different. Although you do not need to be a Christian (yet), you do need to accept a higher being. Allowing atheists and agnostics into BSA would not remove religion from BSA, but allow BSA to expose those scouts to the virtues of being Reverent. I guess I just don't understand why BSA would want to turn anyone away (save criminal or disruptive behavior).

Rooster, My comment was intentionally general to emphasis that what we believe to be true is the truth (at least to us), if you don't believe what I believe, you are wrong. I never brought up protestants but if you really want to get specific, I can. Pat Robertson saying that anyone outside his faith is doomed to hell is one case. He is protestant. Protestants claim that the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus as your saviour. All others will parish. Catholics, Jews, Muslims and yes even us Deists. Its part of the protestant faith. Its part of the protestant faith that I think is flawed. You may believe as you will, but you have damned me to hell.

Of the 10,000 or so religious sects, denominations and organized belief systems, every one of them thinks they are right and not only are the other 9,999 wrong, but are they are on the fast lane to Hell.

I have had sat/cable for years. I am the primary viewer in the household. The kids don't watch much and the better half would rather read. I watch almost exclusively the History channel or Discovery, never network TV. But I do have to admit I will pick up HBO this month because one of my vices is the Sopranos. I have wireless headphones so I can enjoy my vice without disturbing the peaceful sanctity of the homestead.

MegaDittos on the Therma-a-Rest ProLite 4. Found one of these under the Christmas tree last year. Far superior to my old blue closed cell pad I've used for 30 years. It does come with a price being a bit heavier. I do like the idea of storing it inflated though. Better go out in the garage and fetch that bad boy!

We know Saddam had WMD because we sold him them. We have the invoice marked "Paid in Full" and even a picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with him. Now where that pesky scamp put them, that's another story altogether.

Update... Although our troop pulled a big goose egg on gaining any slots for Philmont 2007, our council secured 48 slots and opened them up to the OA lodge. We quickly submitted our apps and my son is going! I'm on the wait list though. So at least someone from my family will experience Philmont! I was told the drop out rate for the trip is pretty high and my chances of going are still good.

LongHaul, I'm sure you look stunning in your nylons...;-)

Hillis, You should start your quest for a good boot at a specialty store, one that focuses on mountaineering and hiking. These are owned and staffed by knowledgable people and can fit you into the boot that best meets your needs. They will be more expensive, but their expertise is worth it. Plus you support a local businessman. If the prices are still too steep, you will know what brand, model and size to get. Then go to a discount retailer and pickup your booty or hit the interwebs. The discounters staff their stores with clerks who know nothing about fit. That's why they are cheaper. By all means, avoid the Walmarts and clones. They buy substandard products and really haven't a clue on fit. On waterproof, look for goretex lined boots. These will breath but provide good protection for stream crossing and hiking in the rain. Avoid rubber and coated nylon products. You might as well wrap your feet in plastic bags. Do not fear leather boots. They breath, can be waterproofed with bees wax and get more confortable every step of the way. My favorite boot is a light Lowa leather boot with goretex. It has a sheep skin lining that is so soft, even after getting wet. They are at the high end of your price range though. Check out this link to see what Lowa has to offer. http://www.lowaboots.com/catalog/ShowBoot.cfm?StockNum=3319334533&Category=3&Type=M

Bobanon, I share many of your same views. Although I am not an agnostic, my religion has no churches to worship in. I'm a Deist like many of our founding fathers. My church is the woods, the forests and the sea. I try to take my children there as often as possible to worship the wonderful creation that we are all part of. I too fear that BSA will turn their respective shoulder on me and my son because we fall outside of the normal structure of organized religion. I fear that BSA will become a Christian centric religous organization instead of a youth leadership one. We (my son and I) remain quite during discussions of religion in our troop. We have no interest in prostelyzing our beliefs on others. We respectfully bow our heads during grace and Sunday camp service, however we do not believe in the power of prayer. We say the pledge of allegiance without pause, but if they dropped the "Under God" phrase, it would have little impact on us. I think most scouters don't have an issue with us being part of scouting. There are some who would like us kicked out, but I think the majority welcome us. I think there are many of us out there, quietly delivering the BSA program we have grown to respect and love.

How does a non-church going Eagle candidate satisfy his BOR that he is qualified to be an Eagle scout? Without a preacher, minister or iman to write a letter of recomendation, what can this scout do to satisfy this requirement?

I gotta agree on the cotton socks. Sure they are comfy for the first couple of miles on the first day, but after that, man. You'd need to peal them off my feet with a torch and a puddy knife. As for the sandals, they have made great strides (pun intended) in sandal design. The biggest problem I have with them is small stones getting under your feet. But for stream crossing and boggy areas, they are the nines. I also agree you can get a pretty nice pair of boots for under $80, but once you get the really nice $180 pair, its real hard to go back! And unless you are growing, they should outlast the $80 pair by 5 fold. Or at least you will love them so much you squeeze every bit of life from them before sending them to hang from the rear view mirror.

Liner socks really do make a huge difference. I was introduced to them about 10 years ago and now wear them while skiing, snowboarding and hiking. They are real thin slippery socks you wear under your normal socks. Any hot spot in the shoe is releived because the inner sock slips inside the outer sock and doesn't rub against the skin. You can buy specific inner socks at high end camping stores or use an old pair of silk dress socks. For those of you shaking your heads in disbelief, give it a try. They really work.

Yes. They are necessary. One twisted ankle and you are done. Not only are they necessary, but you should really think about which ones to buy carefully. The difference between a good hiking boot and a cheap one is the difference between enjoying your trek and regretting you ever started it. I climb 14nrs in the Colorado rockies. I have a favorite pair of Lowa boots that are probably 15 years old. They are no heavier than street shoes, waterproof and extremely comfortable and provide great support. Never had a blister with them. They also retail for over $185. I've probably done 20 summits with them and well over 1000 miles in the back country. The soles are almost gone and I'm on the fourth or fifth set of shoe laces. I don't want to replace them. They fit so well. But alas, I head to Philmont in 2007 so I will be replacing them with an identical pair this summer so I can break them in for the trek next year. Don't go the cheap route on footwear. Comfort and support are king.

OGE, I don't know if you can compare the Panama Canal to this. Although it is strategic to the US, it really does belong to Panama. What bugs me is the perceived need to have a foriegn nation control something that we have admitted is a security problem for us. It would be akin to outsourcing air traffic control to a Saudi Arabian company, or nuclear storage to Iranian interests. I am also offended that some think Americans can't or won't perform this duty because we can't make enough profit. Well, obviously the UAE thinks they can make enough profit. I think what it really comes down to is the UAE had well placed lobbyists who convinced this administration that it would be fine if they took over the contract that the British firm held. The administration didn't even flinch at it and were caught with their hand in the cookie jar when the public got wind of it. It exposed yet again that well funded lobbying can get you everywhere with in DC, no matter who you are.

We are primarily a car camping unit. We try to attend Philmont every three years and do a few backpacking prep treks on those years. My intention is to try to get more backpacking scheduled on the off years. The biggest problem is we normally schedule one troop campout per month and many of those are district events which are car camping. We are trying to spark interest in our patrols to do patrol backpacking overnights in addition to the troop wide campouts. So far, no takers. Its sad, we live in a wonderful backpacking area. In fact, my back yard backs up to the Pike National Forest and they could base from my house if they wanted to. I'll keep mentioning it at every PLC though.

Whether its a good idea or not to allow a foriegn company to control our ports, the phrase "Politically tone deaf" applys. The Bush administration has been using fear of terrorist attacks as their method to advance their agenda. I think this deal has stripped the veneer from that. I don't think they are really interested in protecting Americans from terrorist attacks. There are so many holes left unfilled from the 911 commission report. The war in Iraq is a breeding ground for more Jihadists than democratic converts. And I'm with OGE. Why can't American companies compete for this? Are they barred? Why are we outsourcing jobs that we should be able to do ourselves? I think this is the bigger tragedy. Has America become so inefficient they can no longer support our own infractructure?

Look, Bush is saying he wasn't even aware of it. Can't blame him.

Yes, but can the siren of an ambulance be used to flush lawyers from the brush?

Calico, your hiccups are getting worse. I suggest drinking an entire tall glass of water without stopping then holding your breath for 1 minute.

Do we really want the BSA to become some window dressing to the politicians? This is just wrong on so many fronts.

Brent, By meeting with law enformcement at the first opportunity, Cheney could have dispelled any concern on the use of alcohol in this event. By stonewalling the local police for a period equal to the time necessary to sober up, it only creates more questions than it answers. In this case, Cheney was his worst enemy.

Not so fast Brent, 2,3,4, and 9 could be reason for the 18 hour delay on announcing the incident to the media. 3,4, and 9 would explain why Cheney refused to meet with law enforcement until the next morning.